Comments on: NTP files patent suits against AT&T, Sprint and Verizon

After winning a $612.5 million settlement from RIM last year, NTP is back with patent claims against the largest U.S. wireless carriers over patents for wireless e-mail.

[cbazza]

Unbelievable !!!

More greed and proof that the patent system in the US is broken.

[fred dunn]

No Kidding, But now it's fighting the BIG boys

RIM may have folded due to it's legal costs but the carriers involved this round aren't going to give up so easy and will have the best counsel to bear.
It'll be interesting to watch.
Ahhh...American Capitalism in it's finest hour.
;-)

[thenet411]

I'd like to see them try...

to take away all mobile email. I really would. Something tells me they wouldn't live long enough to enjoy the money.

[someguyineagle]

The american legal system

I love frivolous lawsuits that our legal system seems to encourage. Not to mention the significant waste of tax payers money.

[hackingbear]

That's the cost of law

In places where the laws do not have highest authority, like most undeveloped and developing countries, people complain bad guys do bad things and nothing to punish them.

In the places where the laws have the highest authority, the lawyers easily becomes the bad guys and laws are their guns.

Nothing changes in humanity.

[The Wiethoff]

Close the US Patent office

What good does it do anyone? How often does an individual invent something and become rich from it because they held a patent?

[Techdaddean]

Trolls!

There is a word for NTP and other companies like this: Trolls. They are patent trolls and a fine example of how attorneys get rich at our expense. Because, seriously, reader, who ultimately pays for the legal expenses and settlements?

I fear last week's patent reforms did not go far enough to resolve this situation. Then again, with all the attorneys in Washington what should we expect?

[basraw]

Why did other companies feel the need to violate the patents?

Did they not do any research?

They took a risk. Now they will have to pay.

[ColdMast]

Are we surprised?

Not really surprised

the patent system is being abused to the highest extent, it was made to protect peoples inventions from being copied to insure that innovation is respected. Now we have patent firms who do not innovate, and do not actually produce a product. Their needs to be a change; if a company isn't producing a product that uses the patent that their patent rights should become void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

[zboot]

Really

So, if I invent something, but have no means to mass produce it, then I should give up my rights to my invention. With that kind of mindset, why should I bother doing any work. I mean, I like to help humanity and all, but I can't be 100% altruistic. I too have to live and that costs money. Until someone pays me to do nothing but invent, I cannot invent without some sort of recourse that I can profit from my work, whether it be by actually mass producing the invention, or suing those who do not license it properly.

[Scott Gardener]

Patent system is broken

This is a perfect demonstration of why patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property concepts are in desperate need of revision. The purpose of patents is to promote invention by seeing to it that inventors are paid. But, the way the system works actively stifles innovation, because it creates a system ripe for lawyers to hunt for cases, and worse yet, it encourages patent-hoarding.

NTP and SCO both exist as corporations for the express purpose of holding onto patents for things they don't intend to make, so they can sue anyone who makes it. Given that patents are possible for just about any idea what-so-ever, (Gaming company Wizards of the Coast holds a patent for turning a card in play sideways. I kid you not. It's called "tapping," and any Geek over the age of 15 should remember Magic: the Gathering) it is almost inevitable that inventors will inadvertently duplicate existing patents, and not even think it significant enough to research. (Would you look to see if there's a patent on turning cards sideways before publishing a card game?)

SCO's original purpose has long since dissipated; it's profit model, and indeed it's very existence, is to sue users of Linux. NTP is demonstrating it's true purpose as well, to stifle and crush phone technology.

What's worse: we here in the United States are already looking pretty backwards compared to the rest of the world. While Asians and Europeans routinely enjoy broadband phone tech, we're struggling with CDMA vs. GSM format wars, phones locked to networks (the unequivocal main drawback to the iPhone), and limited service penetration. We don't need this, too.

[P. Jackson]

Completely agree

What he said.

[chuck_whealton]

These guys need to go

This is outrageous. These guys need to go and our patent systems needs serious reform.

It's incredible. A business model that many would agree is unethical at best, and nobody lifts a finger to stop it.

Charles R. Whealton

[crue24]

Crazy

I'm totally with everyone who hates these two organizations. Personally I can't stand them. On the flip side though, if the court/patent system keeps awarding judgments in favor of these guys, then who can blame them? Is it sleazy, yes, but they are companies and are responsible to shareholders to make profits. Investors don't care that everyone hates the company, they care that the company makes money. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, just that I understand why they do it...because they can make money that way.

For the commenter who defended them by saying what if I'm an inventor and I don't have the resources to make the product should I just stop inventing: totally bogus excuse! Especially bogus if you are patenting very generic or vague ideas. Look at Apple, look at Microsoft, Napster or just about any technology company. They started in dorm rooms and garages and they actually made an effort to go out and seek funding to start a business or sell their ideas to other companies and bring it to fruition in some form. To simply come up with something, patent it and then simply sit on and do nothing with the idea is just stifling innovation. You're not a creator, your a dreamer, you think things up but don't see the entire process through.

It would be a different story if these guys went to RIM or Palm or whatever the case may be up front and early and try to sell it to them or get them to license it, but that's not what is happening. These people/companies are sitting on patents, waiting for another company to do all the real work, develop the business model, develop the technology and once the product is successful, THEN they go after them with a lawsuit. The same rules that apply to branding should apply to patents and intellectual property. It's why Windows went hard and heavy after Lindows and Apple music went after Apple Computer, etc. etc. If they don't actively defend the brand name up front, then they can't make a claim later down the road. These guys wait until there's big money on the table and then go after them.

It is 100% opportunistic and predatory. And in the case of these guys, we're not talking about some poor one man operation who invented something, we're talking about corporations. And again, even for the truly little guys, if you don't make an attempt to take it to market within X reasonable period of time, then too bad. Franklin didn't write up the specs for the light bulb and wait for someone else to create it so he could sue them. He did what he had to do. And in this day and age, you have kids in their teens who create these brilliant ideas and manage to get funding so I don't buy the idea of not having the resources. If you don't have the sales skills then take on a partner. Look at the Woz and Jobs. It's no secret, Woz did most of the creating, he was the real inventor, but Jobs had the business brains and sales appeal.

Look at Gates, and I'm not exactly a MS fan, but while still in college he managed to sell a product he hadn't even created yet and then had to figure out how to do it! if you want to half heartedly create something without seeing it through, then you don't deserve the credit for it. Someone will eventually come up with the same idea and why should they have to pay someone who chose to do nothing with it?

The current system is flawed and as long as the law allows it to stay that way, companies/people will continue to sue because they can win.

Sure, it's better to be a noble man, but would you rather be noble and make a meager salary or be a prick and become rich WITHIN the law....hmmm, I bet most would rather have the big house and a Porsche.

The law needs to change so that the real inventors and innovators don't have to pay the people who had an idea they weren't willing to see through.